923 F2d 864 United States v. E White
923 F.2d 864
Unpublished Disposition
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Edward E. WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
No. 90-10086.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 10, 1990.
Decided Jan. 17, 1991.
Before SKOPIL and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON,* District Judge.
MEMORANDUM**
White admits he falsely represented himself as an enrolled agent on seven power of attorney forms. These forms were admitted into evidence and form the basis of his conviction. White argues, however, that the district court should have admitted into evidence approximately one hundred power of attorney forms on which White did not represent himself as an enrolled agent. If this evidence had been admitted, White contends, he could have argued to the jury that the seven misleading forms were the product of confusion and were unintentional.
Even if the district court's ruling was erroneous, we may not reverse when the error is harmless. United States v. Brown, 880 F.2d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir.1989). In this case, it is more probable than not that the claimed error in failing to admit the documents did not affect the jury's verdict. The secretary who worked in White's office testified that when she asked White for his enrolled agent number, he wrote a number down on a post-it note and gave it to her. She testified that he then signed his name next to that number on the seven forms in question. An IRS agent who met with White three times testified that on each occasion he claimed to have forgotten his enrolled agent card. Each time he was appearing on behalf of a taxpayer, something only an enrolled agent may do. Another IRS agent testified that he also dealt with White under the assumption he was an enrolled agent, and White did nothing to correct the misimpression. A third agent testified that, when White met with her on behalf of a taxpayer, he claimed to have forgotten his card. White's only response to all of this testimony was to deny it. It is evident that the jury did not believe White's denials. Had the proffered evidence been admitted, there is no reason to believe that the jury would have found White credible, as the proffered evidence did not go to White's credibility.
AFFIRMED.